Loose Change

[Tom]

Tom, watch the videos, see it for yourself...the Alex Jones one I referred to talks about the fact that WTC7 wasn't hit by any debris, and apparently just "fell" because it had a fire on a couple of floors for a couple of hours?!? (Never happened before - another "first") But, another building inside the complex, that had a more intense fire and was hit by debris, was still standing at the end of the day.

A google image search reveals plenty of interesting photographs of WTC7 complete with rather major damage. Large portions of the lower sections of the building are completely missing.

... just watch Loose Change, the explosions are there on vid (there's an audio pickup from another WTC building). The siesmograph evidence also shows spikes immediately preceding the collapse, indicating large explosions.

Siesmograph evidence, what, this?

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

No, but I've conducted tensile tests on various metals, I've studied basic physics and complex thermodynamics and nothing about the pancaking "theory" makes sense ... there's no resistance!

That simply is not true

The entire length of the buildings structural columns gave way simultaneously, allowing it to fall straight down. If fires/plane caused a stuctural weakness it would have been localised and the top part of the building would come crashing down - no doubt damaging/crushing floors beneath it, but the inherent strength of the underlying supports would stop it falling all-the-way-down...like it did.

No it does not. Its clear to anybody that the buildings are being compressed and destroyed by the massive amount of load being applied to each level as the top of the building comes crashing down. The floor supports were simply not designed to carry that much load. Its impossible. And before you start, the structural weakness was localised - to exactly the positions the aircraft stuck. This is why the second tower to be hit fell first, because the damage was lower down (more load), and because more of the floor supports were damaged due to the angle the aircraft hit.

There's numerous firefighter reports of bombs going off, a janitor in the basement of WTC was caught up in a "blast", and, there's video footage showing the camera shake from a bomb seconds before the collapse of one of the towers (watch the vid). Also, the basement under the rubble was over 2000 degrees which is consistant with thermal charges, not jet fuel ... watch the vids.

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/basementbombs.html

How would a Janitor understand the difference between an explosion of compressed air from an impact above, and a shaped demolition charge? Not even a fireman would know. On the very famous video from the young cameraman that shot the first impact, and who subsequently followed the firefighters into the north tower, you can clearly hear debris and bodies crashing into the lobby and surrounding plaza, long after the initial impact.

Also, camera shake proves nothing. Its much more likely that somebody brushed against a leg of the tripod, or flicked a switch on the camera body, or even engaged the tilt lock. I should know.

Its all very silly. Any body of work that uses as part of its argument evidence that is clearly flawed, is not worthy serious consideration. I'd like to see Loose Change prepared for peer review, I guarantee the author wouldn't do it.

 

[Skyler]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

But really all you need is the Checkmate link Paradroid posted the other day. That shows enough that we are not told everything.

That particular article is actually very good, stating how overuse of facts can turn people off the idea that this was not real.

 

[Tom]

Well, you got me. Everything is a conspiracy. Its obvious when those sites PUT EVERYTHING IN CAPS WITH EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!

 

[Paradroid]

No, but I've conducted tensile tests on various metals, I've studied basic physics and complex thermodynamics and nothing about the pancaking "theory" makes sense ... there's no resistance!

...
That simply is not true
...

Hey guys, look, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time in history that a modern skyscraper has completely collapsed from fire all happen on 911 (and lots of them have had fires, the Empire state building was once hit by a B-52).

A building that collapses with fire does not collapse like it was demolished - that's why God invented demolition men, and thermite charges. Can't you see the flaw in the logic (irrespective if you know the details of the maths & physics)? That's why there are demolition people, to remove the solid supports so that buildings will fall down as seen on 9/11!



http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

...
The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the North Tower collapse:

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.)
But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building which supported the antenna to evidently give way nearly simultaneously, if not cutter charges?
...
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.
...
Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included (Ryan, 2005). Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission) even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).
...
The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)

The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner as it commences its steady fall) falls to earth in (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds, while an object dropped from the roof (in a vacuum) would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans. A recent (2006) analysis by a Mechanical Engineering Professor on the rapid collapse of the Towers, casting further doubt on the "official" floor-pancaking theory, is found here: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html.

How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).

And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the falling Towers to fine dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a piling up with shattering of concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused progressive collapse (“official theory”), we find that most of the Towers material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is converted to flour-like powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The Towers’ collapses are not typical implosions, but quite possibly series of “shock-and-awe” explosions coupled with the use of thermate-incendiaries – at least the evidence points strongly in this direction. The hypothesis ought to be explored further.
...

If you want to believe that the CIA asset Osama Bin Laden independantly organised a highly trained group of terrorists (we should know, we trained them) and attacked NY on 9/11 because "they hate our freedoms", then feel free. But don't ignore the physics of demolitions.

 

[xane]

A building that collapses with fire does not collapse like it was demolished.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall o u t ward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2004-01/27/content_301145.htm

A 12-story building that had drawn police attention for alleged illegal renovations collapsed in a Cairo suburb during a fire Monday night,
...
The officials first said the fire broke out at an Egyptian fast-food restaurant on the ground floor, but later reported it began at the adjacent store.
...
The structure collapsed accordion-style into a pile of rubble about two stories high. Several satellite dishes rested intact on the roof, and a panda toy, slippers, bags and a brass pot were scattered in the debris.

 

[DaGaffer]

If you want to believe that the CIA asset Osama Bin Laden independantly organised a highly trained group of terrorists (we should know, we trained them) and attacked NY on 9/11 because "they hate our freedoms", then feel free. But don't ignore the physics of demolitions.

Yet another myth. At no point has Osama Bin Laden received CIA funding. He channeled Saudi money into something called the 'Office of Services' and then into his own ventures. Everyone makes the connection between Bin Laden and the CIA because Bin Laden was involved with the Mujahedeen and the CIA funded them during the Soviet years, but its a spurious connection, especially as Mujahedeen is something of a broad umbrella covering a variety of competing Afghan factions. Ever seen that episode of The Simpsons when the kids are discussing conspiracy theories in the treehouse? This conversation reminds me of that; you'll be looking for reverse vampires next.

 

[xane]

Yet another myth. At no point has Osama Bin Laden received CIA funding.

Well, lets ask the man himself.

""Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help."
...
"We were never at any time friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans support the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies."

Interview(s) with Robert Fisk, Sudan, 1996

 

[DaGaffer]

Hey guys, look, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time in history that a modern skyscraper has completely collapsed from fire all happen on 911 (and lots of them have had fires, the Empire state building was once hit by a B-52).

Was it bollocks.The Empire State Building was hit by a B-17 in 1945 (a rather different plane to a B-52!). And to give this some context, a 757 fully laden (which the WTC planes were - with fuel), weighs 115,680Kg. A fully laden B-17 (which this wasn't but never mind), weighs 24,948Kg. The WTC planes were estimated to have hit the towers at around 470 Mph. The B-17 was almost certainly doing less than 200mph (it was looking for La Guardia Airport in fog). Apply some basic physics (1/2MVsqd) and you see the WTC impacts were approx 25 Times more powerful than the B-17 incident, and square on against a different type of structure.

 

[Tom]

Hey guys, look, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time in history that a modern skyscraper has completely collapsed from fire all happen on 911 (and lots of them have had fires, the Empire state building was once hit by a B-52).

A building that collapses with fire does not collapse like it was demolished - that's why God invented demolition men, and thermite charges. Can't you see the flaw in the logic (irrespective if you know the details of the maths & physics)? That's why there are demolition people, to remove the solid supports so that buildings will fall down as seen on 9/11!



http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The Empire State building is an entirely different design, so comparing it with the towers is just plain silly.

Hey guys, look, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time in history that a modern skyscraper has completely collapsed because big feckoff passenger jets went screaming at full speed into the sides of the twin towers while fully laden with jet fuel, and because half a million tonnes of falling debris ruined WTC7. But lets not ignore the physics of any of that lot eh? It spoils a good story.

 

[xane]

One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
source

Claiming that demolitions were responsible ignores far more issues than claiming they were not. How much explosives would be needed to bring down two 110 storey buildings, baring in mind no pre-weakening was done ? How did they plant them without anyone seeing or knowing ? How did they detonate them accurately and in the correct sequence without using wires ? Why go all the trouble of having planes fly in when you could just blame it all on a car park bomb (which triggers your demolition), a bomb has been attempted (unsuccessfully) on the WTC before.

Another expert http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

 

[Paradroid]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2004-01/27/content_301145.htm

Xane, the Dr you linked to doesn't even present a consistant theory. He said it was primarily because the fire spread right across the whole floor at once, combined with the planes impact weakening the structure ... but what about WTC7? No jet fuel spread across the whole floor there. Also, he goes to length to explain the differences between temp & heat (energy) but fails to provide any explanation as to how quick burning jet fuel could have raised the "heat" in the supports enough for a complete collapse. Again, all this avoids the free fall of all 3 towers (see: basic physics). That's also ignoring the fact he used to work for the US navy and currently works under homeland security.

The 2nd reference you used says it all:

...
Building collapses are common in Egypt and are often caused by shoddy construction or the unauthorized building of extra stories.
...

...but it's entirely uncommon in well-designed, well-constructed, modern, steel-built skyscrapers.

If you want to believe that the CIA asset Osama Bin Laden independantly organised a highly trained group of terrorists (we should know, we trained them) and attacked NY on 9/11 because "they hate our freedoms", then feel free. But don't ignore the physics of demolitions.

Yet another myth. At no point has Osama Bin Laden received CIA funding. He channeled Saudi money into something called the 'Office of Services' and then into his own ventures. Everyone makes the connection between Bin Laden and the CIA because Bin Laden was involved with the Mujahedeen and the CIA funded them during the Soviet years, but its a spurious connection, especially as Mujahedeen is something of a broad umbrella covering a variety of competing Afghan factions. Ever seen that episode of The Simpsons when the kids are discussing conspiracy theories in the treehouse? This conversation reminds me of that; you'll be looking for reverse vampires next.

Don't accuse me of spreading myths because the subtleties of the word asset elude you. I never said he was paid by anyone, I said he was an asset. I also said that if you want to believe any of that, feel free.

And, yes, comparing a B-25 (soz) hitting the Empire State building & a 757 hitting the WTC is like comparing apples'n'pears...it was an off the cuff remark.

...
Hey guys, look, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time in history that a modern skyscraper has completely collapsed because big feckoff passenger jets went screaming at full speed into the sides of the twin towers while fully laden with jet fuel, and because half a million tonnes of falling debris ruined WTC7. But lets not ignore the physics of any of that lot eh? It spoils a good story.
...

But you're missing the key point here. Why did it free-fall? It doesn't make sense. You think a conspiracy theory is a good story, but the WTC collapses were in the realm of science fiction/fantasy.

Claiming that demolitions were responsible ignores far more issues than claiming they were not. How much explosives would be needed to bring down two 110 storey buildings, baring in mind no pre-weakening was done ? How did they plant them without anyone seeing or knowing ? How did they detonate them accurately and in the correct sequence without using wires ? Why go all the trouble of having planes fly in when you could just blame it all on a car park bomb (which triggers your demolition), a bomb has been attempted (unsuccessfully) on the WTC before.

You've just asked a lot of relevant questions there (that are all explained in the vids). G. W. Bush's brother (Marvin Bush) was head of the security company in charge of the WTC complex, there's numerous reports of security being pulled leading up to 911 - I'd say that gives them ample opportunity to plant charges.


link.

...
Heightened WTC Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY NewsDay]

Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down

On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower."
...

I think WTC7 was the control hub, I'd speculate that's why it was destroyed (ie the evidence). It's tenants included:

Department of Defense (DOD)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
Securities and Exchange Commission
US Secret Service


You also mentioned the WTC bombing from 1993, another instance when the government were complicit. Go figure.

...
FBI foreknowledge
In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, who was involved with the bombing conspiracy. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992, information he was privy to possibly because he himself initiated the plot. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem asserted that the original FBI plan was to supply the plotters with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be constructed instead. He substantiated his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings.

Salem said he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office. The FBI has never contradicted Salem's account.
...

 

[Tom]

Right, so now a man involved in a conspiracy to bomb a building is more trustworthy than government agencies - and you critisise Xane for linking to a man employed by the government?

And I'll say it again, those buildings don't freefall.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

 

[Paradroid]

Right, so now a man involved in a conspiracy to bomb a building is more trustworthy than government agencies - and you critisise Xane for linking to a man employed by the government?

And I'll say it again, those buildings don't freefall.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

I didn't say anyone was trustworthy, I was remarking on the similarities of the previous bombing in 1993 and the "conspiracy theory" of 911 (ie government foreknowledge/complicity). And I wasn't criticising Xane, I was pointing out the fact that the good Dr. has a previous military connection and currently works for the government - which I thought was relevant, considering.

link.

...
''We need a full accounting of the Bush administration's spending on advertising, PR, and fake news,'' said Craig Aaron of advocacy group Free Press. ''It's time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional role as a counterweight to the executive branch and permanently cut off funding for covert propaganda. We must ensure that taxpayer money isn't being spent by the White House to secretly manipulate the American public.''
...

 

[xane]

but fails to provide any explanation as to how quick burning jet fuel could have raised the "heat" in the supports enough for a complete collapse.

t has been made clear in the links that "heat" is not the issue, anything will start to melt or weaken with enough energy, it is not the temperature of the fuel burn, or the time it took, but the fact there was so much of it.

"Failure to provide explaination" is not an argument for conspiracy, it is an argument for incompetence, and then you have to argue if incompetent people call pull off a conspiracy.

 

[xane]

...but it's entirely uncommon in well-designed, well-constructed, modern, steel-built skyscrapers.

Actually, the common complain amongst experts was that the WTC was not a very well designed or well constructed building.

 

[xane]

You've just asked a lot of relevant questions there (that are all explained in the vids). G. W. Bush's brother (Marvin Bush) was head of the security company in charge of the WTC complex, there's numerous reports of security being pulled leading up to 911 - I'd say that gives them ample opportunity to plant charges.

And they managed to fool tens of thousands of people who work there every day ? We are talking about the Bush family, those bunch of chimps, fooling thousands and thousands of people, for days on end, and every single person in the security company and the mysterious demolition company, hundreds, possibly thousands, of them, complicit in the conspiracy ?

Lets take a step back, the argument that the twin towers were collapsed by demolitions is a weak one, as they don't pancake, the structural failure is where the planes hit, and the sheer amount of demolition work involved is beyond comprehension. If you accept that the planes caused the tower collapse, then you have to ask why WTC7 was deliberately demolished as well and what that would achieve ?

Whilst you might raise questions over insurance scams with WTC7, which most of the conspiracy claims are actually based on, it does not _in any way_ detract from the fact that terrorists attacked the place and it wasn't a government conspiracy.

WTC7 is a distraction, even if you conclusively proved it was "pulled" by deliberate demolition it doesn't imply the government had anything to do with it or that the twin towers were felled by planes flown by suicidal terrorists under the guise of an islamic world domination plan.

 

[xane]

another instance when the government were complicit. Go figure.

Where in that article, does it say the government were complicit ? The only evidence is that the FBI do not contradict Salem, they don't exactly agree with him either.

Nice use of the word "another".

 

[Paradroid]

Where in that article, does it say the government were complicit ? The only evidence is that the FBI do not contradict Salem, they don't exactly agree with him either.

Nice use of the word "another".

... I thought so too.

 

[Paradroid]

And they managed to fool tens of thousands of people who work there every day ? We are talking about the Bush family, those bunch of chimps, fooling thousands and thousands of people, for days on end, and every single person in the security company and the mysterious demolition company, hundreds, possibly thousands, of them, complicit in the conspiracy ?
...

Prescott Bush? Businessman with dodgy dealings with the Nazis?
George H W Bush? ex-CIA Chief? ex-President? ex-Carlyle advisor?
Marvin Bush? Head of WTC and United Airlines security running up to 911?
Jeb Bush? Governor of Florida?
George Bush? President? ex-Governor of Texas? ex-Carlyle advisor?

The current President Bush may lack the "smarts" of body language and have trouble engaging his brain, but that's a powerful family he's got. I'd agree they're a bunch of chimps, but they're a bunch of chimps running America.

That's not even mentioning his sidekicks Cheney & Rumsfeld (Dick & the Devil).






Oh, and about the WTC ... PHYSICS!!!!!

(someone get Jack Bauer to explain or something)

Gravitational Acceleration is approx 10 metres per second (squared) - which means that the velocity of a free falling object will increase by 10 metres per second every second (a more accurate figure is 9.81 m/s(sq)).

Hence, an object falling will after:

1 second, be travelling at 10 metres per second.
2 seconds, be travelling at 20 metres per second.
3 seconds, be travelling at 30 metres per second.
... and so on.

The key here isn't just the numbers, it's the word accelerating. An object dropped off the top of WTC7 would take approx 6 seconds to free fall through a vacuum (ie no resistance), the estimated time for the WTC7 collapse was 6.5 seconds. According to physics there wasn't enough "time" for the collapse.

The bottom part represents a large resistance, which counteracts any free-fall effect from the top part. Each floor/section has an inherent strength that would need to be overcome before it too collapsed. So, it would have been travelling slower and slower as it descends and it wouldn't have had enough energy to destroy the entire building beneath it (just like someone stepping on top of a ladder and smashing through the runs - you're going to slow down and stop when the energy runs out). To accept the theory that it just utterly collapsed "naturally", is akin to saying that the top part accelerated through the bottom part with little resistance - but it was made of the same material, which doesn't make sense. Maybe the bottom part was made of wood?

:touch:

 

[Paradroid]

... I'd just like someone to draw me a picture of how it happened, that's all - I'd accept a freak design flaw if it was convincing enough (ignoring all the other oddities on 911), mildly interesting nonetheless.


Anyone see that Dispatches documentary the other night about Blair's spin-on-terror? (He really is a tit.) There's another one on next week too, worth a watch.

 

[Damini]

The bottom part represents a large resistance, which counteracts any free-fall effect from the top part. Each floor/section has an inherent strength that would need to be overcome before it too collapsed. So, it would have been travelling slower and slower as it descends and it wouldn't have had enough energy to destroy the entire building beneath it (just like someone stepping on top of a ladder and smashing through the runs - you're going to slow down and stop when the energy runs out). To accept the theory that it just utterly collapsed "naturally", is akin to saying that the top part accelerated through the bottom part with little resistance - but it was made of the same material, which doesn't make sense. Maybe the bottom part was made of wood?

:touch:

The ladder parallel doesn't compare, as each previous slat is not carrying the entire weight of everything above it - the weight crashing down on each layer as it breaks in the WTC increases, which would therefore work against the process you mention of breaking momentum. I would think more of the effect of dominos, and the way they balance momentum, impact, and energy transferal, rather than the ladder image, and even that isn't accurate, because each domino is only hit with the weight of the domino preceeding it.

I'd have thought that the top part accelerated through the bottom part with little resistance not because the material was wood-like, but because each layer had been designed to be an equal sharing load bearing structure, and each layer was then being forced to carry the total weight of eveything above, magnified by the rate at which it was falling, the accumalative weight versus the number of levels capable of distributing the shock through, and all this under conditions where the structure had also been bombarded and superheated in places, which can't really help the intergrity. It's been a long, long time since I did Physics though, and I bombed out of Mechanics A-Level, so I may well be talking jibber. Just musing.

 

[TdC]

According to physics there wasn't enough "time" for the collapse.

but Para, it wasn't falling, it was collapsing. I imagine if you'd drop the tower in a vacume your argument would be correct, but the tower isn't falling it's own height, it's collapsing from standing. I think that's different.

 

[Tom]

Looks like this twunt will need a thicker tin foil hat....

http://www.loosechange911.com/main_naudet.html

 

[Tom]

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

Its ok to remove your tinfoil hat now

 

[ECA]

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

Its ok to remove your tinfoil hat now

I don't had access error 403 access forbidden.

Could you get in touch with the guys who run the sputnik mind control satellites and let them know they made a mistake :-[

 

[Wij]

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

Its ok to remove your tinfoil hat now

It won't help. Some people just want to believe crazy crap. Let them think what they like. I know they're wrong. Good enough for me.

 

[Doh_boy]

The ladder parallel doesn't compare, as each previous slat is not carrying the entire weight of everything above it - the weight crashing down on each layer as it breaks in the WTC increases, which would therefore work against the process you mention of breaking momentum. I would think more of the effect of dominos, and the way they balance momentum, impact, and energy transferal, rather than the ladder image, and even that isn't accurate, because each domino is only hit with the weight of the domino preceeding it.

I'd have thought that the top part accelerated through the bottom part with little resistance not because the material was wood-like, but because each layer had been designed to be an equal sharing load bearing structure, and each layer was then being forced to carry the total weight of eveything above, magnified by the rate at which it was falling, the accumalative weight versus the number of levels capable of distributing the shock through, and all this under conditions where the structure had also been bombarded and superheated in places, which can't really help the intergrity. It's been a long, long time since I did Physics though, and I bombed out of Mechanics A-Level, so I may well be talking jibber. Just musing.

Dunno if this is helps/adds anything but I remember reading that a major factor in the tower(s) falling is the melting point of the metal holding the floors in place being reached so it began to warp. Thus there would be minimal resistence due to the properties of the metal at the temperature concerned. (very elastic at the melting point, obviously ). So the rate of fall would have speed up (I guess) exponentially due to teh increase in weight and the increased strain on the already compromised structure.

I got a D in both physics and Mechanics so I'm perfectly qualified to have no idea

 

[Tom]

Have you seen the Loose Change forums? Its like a government plan to gather the loonies in one place, and keep an eye on them:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php

 

[Lester]

Nothing that big could ever be a government conspiracy, it takes too many people and someone would have spoken up. If you believe that JFK was killed by the CIA then you can see that it only involved a very small number of people who were mostly murdered to hide the trail.

911 would require a bunch of people so large that it could never be kept secret.

 

[old.user4556]

911 would require a bunch of people so large that it could never be kept secret.

A bit like the moon landings, too many people involved.